The Queen vs The Republic

[pb21]

you'd be ok as a tax payer subsidising the lifestyle and properties of a President? the costs of a head of state don't disappear when you change the method of appointment.

I see your point but there are a couple of fundamental differences.

The first is that the president would be democratically elected and as such would have a mandate to use hard working tax payers money in that way, i.e. we would have effectively voted to say that's ok.

The second point is that I would be surprised if the presidents grandchildren would have tax payer funded weddings, I can't imagine people voting for that.

Another slightly less significant point is that an individual president would likely have fixed terms.

So it's not really the same, although if it was I would say the same thing.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

I see your point but there are a couple of fundamental differences.

The first is that the president would be democratically elected and as such would have a mandate to use hard working tax payers money in that way, i.e. we would have effectively voted to say that's ok.

The second point is that I would be surprised if the presidents grandchildren would have tax payer funded weddings, I can't imagine people voting for that.

Another slightly less significant point is that an individual president would likely have fixed terms.

So it's not really the same, although if it was I would say the same thing.

Sounds ok,trouble is a Republic like any government and The Queen is priceless in terms of revenue.

 

[5ways]

Sounds ok,trouble is a Republic like any government and The Queen is priceless in terms of revenue.

Which is why Versailles is a ghost town?

 

[beorhthelm]

So it's not really the same, although if it was I would say the same thing.

apart from the weddings for family, it is pretty much the same if you have a President. you'll note there's plenty of wealth, inequality in all the republics in the world (even the communist ones).

 

[burnee54]

She's an absolute gem, and almost level pegging with Chris Houghton in legend status. Happy birthday ma'am.

I wonder what she would be like running a footie team?

 

[Seagull]

that worked so well they brought back the monarchy.

you highlight the issues of their wealth, inequality and privilege, none of which would change under a republic. so are you opposed from a position of principle or just jealousy?

It's not very optimistic of you to assume it would be no different under a Republic. Just because you cannot currently envisage it does not mean a better, fairer, more modern future is not possible. Though I concede it won't be easy.

Yes it's a point of principle. I actually feel rather sorry for the royals and their life in a gilded cage.

 

[Hampster Gull]

Its all very odd this subservient thing

 

[Hampster Gull]

I think the OP's original question is flawed - it should have been either:

Queen vs President, or
Royal Family vs Republic.

The fact of the matter is the Queen has actually broadened the scope of her role and delegated the new stuff to the rest of her family. In this way the House of Windsor can simultaneously perform its constitutional domestic role, do the charity stuff, do the media relations stuff AND do the world tour stuff all at the same time.

In effect, the UK has a permanent PR firm working on their behalf and - leaving aside the views of Brits - the rest of the world seems extremely receptive to our Royal Family and gives us an edge on the global stage. Like them or not, Kate and Harry in particular seem to have star quality.

House of Windsor?! All made up. They had a german name until something like 1917 when they decided to change names

 

[Invicta]

1-0 to the Queen

 

[Giraffe]

I love the Queen and all that she stands for. May she live forever, or at least long enough that we only have to suffer Charles for a little bit before William who I also love rises to the throne.

 

[Diablo]

I love the Queen and all that she stands for. May she live forever, or at least long enough that we only have to suffer Charles for a little bit before William who I also love rises to the throne.

 

[cunning fergus]

I see your point but there are a couple of fundamental differences.

The first is that the president would be democratically elected and as such would have a mandate to use hard working tax payers money in that way, i.e. we would have effectively voted to say that's ok.

The second point is that I would be surprised if the presidents grandchildren would have tax payer funded weddings, I can't imagine people voting for that.

Another slightly less significant point is that an individual president would likely have fixed terms.

So it's not really the same, although if it was I would say the same thing.

The EU has 3 Presidents (Tusk, Juncker and Scultz) that the British taxpayer pays for and yet we have not voted for one of them.

They sit at the top of institutions that we pay billions of pounds for and wield immense political power.

Comparatively the Queen costs far less and has no political power.

This debate is like a man that has just lost his arms in a hay baling accident moaning about an ingrowing toenail.

 

[Seagull]

House of Windsor?! All made up. They had a german name until something like 1917 when they decided to change names

If you double up his parent's original names (Spanish style) the next King would be:
Charles Battenburg von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha
(Anglicised of course to Mountbatten Windsor)

Gott Im Himmel!

 

[pb21]

The EU has 3 Presidents (Tusk, Juncker and Scultz) that the British taxpayer pays for and yet we have not voted for one of them.

They sit at the top of institutions that we pay billions of pounds for and wield immense political power.

Comparatively the Queen costs far less and has no political power.

This debate is like a man that has just lost his arms in a hay baling accident moaning about an ingrowing toenail.

But there has already been one referendum on the EU in the past and there is another coming up,we have voted and we will vote.

When was the last or when is the next referendum regarding the Royal Family?

 

[KingKev]

I think she is brilliant at her job.

But that having a hereditary head of state is ridiculous. Imagine someone suggesting it if it wasn't already in place!

100% agree with this, and so will a lot of Commonwealth countries. I expect Charles / William be head of state of a lot fewer nations than EIIR is now, and I personally think we should follow suit (but doubt we will in my lifetime).

 

[cunning fergus]

But there has already been one referendum on the EU in the past and there is another coming up,we have voted and we will vote.

When was the last or when is the next referendum regarding the Royal Family?

That's weak, I expected better........

There was a referendum for an arrangement in the 70s for trade that has subsequently lead to the position today where there has been wholesale surrender of sovereignty and taxpayers money, there was no referendum in between.

In the last Euro election, UKIP won, a referendum is fair in recognition of that, just like it was for the SNP in the Scottish Parliamentary elections.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2014/may/26/european-election-results-ukip-victory-uk-live

Once a Republican Party or political party wins a similar share in a general election then we should get a referendum.

The point I was making nonetheless is "we" as euro citizens have 3 Presidents representing our interests in various ways within the 3 key EU institutions. Yet, we have not had a vote for any of these unelected officials, and they have an influence on UK laws, and spend UK taxpayers money in a construct that is way beyond the influence of our unelected Head of State.

If we are going to moan about the Monarch's lack of democratic legitimacy to the PEOPLE, then let's look at where that is most offensive and costly.

It won't be found in Windsor.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The EU has 3 Presidents (Tusk, Juncker and Scultz) that the British taxpayer pays for and yet we have not voted for one of them.

They sit at the top of institutions that we pay billions of pounds for and wield immense political power.

Comparatively the Queen costs far less and has no political power.

This debate is like a man that has just lost his arms in a hay baling accident moaning about an ingrowing toenail.

All Tory shills....no doubt?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

But there has already been one referendum on the EU in the past and there is another coming up,we have voted and we will vote.

When was the last or when is the next referendum regarding the Royal Family?

We don't need a referendum, just a guillotine.

 

[nicko31]

We don't need a referendum, just a guillotine.

Just remember the Royal Family are Germans..

 

[cunning fergus]

We don't need a referendum, just a guillotine.

That policy certainly worked well for the French didn't it?

The terror, the great terror, the republican Napoleon marry himself to a Hapsberg and naming his son the King of Rome?

What Republic are they on now? Is it 5?

No wonder they are so bitter.